IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/miffpb/303610.html

Pay, Talk or 'Whip" to Conserve Forests: Framed Field Experiments in Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Hambulo Ngoma
  • Amare Teklay Hailu
  • Stephen Kabwe
  • Arild Angelson

Abstract

Key Findings -167,000 – 300,000 hectares of forest are lost every year in Zambia, and different polices are in place or have been proposed to contain forest loss. But, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these policies. -We conducted framed field experiments with actual forest users to test ex-ante the impacts of community forest management, command and control, and payments for environmental services on forest conservation in Zambia. -Relative to open access, community forest management and payments for environmental services to individuals led to more forest conservation, implying that both monetary and non-monetary motives matter for forest conservation. -Forest reliance, measured by whether the participants sold any forest product in the month preceding the survey, significantly increased harvest in the experiment. -Female participants had significantly higher harvest rates than males. This result runs counter to assertions suggesting that females are more pro-conservation. -These results imply that better conservation outcomes might be achieved by some combinations of community forest management and individual payments for environmental services, provided the transaction costs can be kept at acceptable levels. -Thus, Zambia’s community forestry management will need to provide individual households with clear material benefits in order to compensate for the loss from reduced forest use.

Suggested Citation

  • Hambulo Ngoma & Amare Teklay Hailu & Stephen Kabwe & Arild Angelson, "undated". "Pay, Talk or 'Whip" to Conserve Forests: Framed Field Experiments in Zambia," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Briefs 303610, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:miffpb:303610
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.303610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/303610/files/PB%2B96.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.303610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Yehouenou, Lauriane & Morgan, Stephen N. & Grogan, Kelly A., 2020. "Management of timber and non-timber forest products: Evidence from a framed field experiment in Benin, West Africa," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304627, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Angelsen, Arild & Naime, Julia, 2024. "The mixed impacts of peer punishments on common-pool resources: Multi-country experimental evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    4. Yehouenou, Lauriane S. & Morgan, Stephen N. & Grogan, Kelly A., 2021. "Managing a Multiuse Resource with Payments for Ecosystems Services: A Classroom Game," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 3(3), September.
    5. Cao, Bo & Zhu, Hongge & Wang, Yufang, 2025. "Has China's “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families? Evidence from China's Natural Forest Protection Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:miffpb:303610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.